WHO Globalism


This page on the WHO globalist agenda is a more dedicated resource that centres on the ongoing proposed amendments to the International Health Regulations and how it goes hand in glove with their Plandemic Treaty power coup that they're trying to set up on the back of it. In the recent past, I did a blog on this topic but widened it to encompass COVID and climate change too. I decided a more focussed resource would be potentially more useful to those just wanting to look deeper into the WHO power grab itself. Some of the documents I used for the blog have been more recently updated too. I will endeavour to keep this resource up to date with the most recent versions as they change.

It would seem that the globalists are determined to further their cause and drive towards a NWO using “health” as the pretext for taking global control, initially at least.  They tried last year with their first brazen attempt at a Plandemic Treaty that was ultimately defeated by a number of African Nations refusing to hand over their sovereignty to the WHO under such an agreement, as the UK Government should have done too as they are legally obliged to do under our constitution, but more on that later.

Having failed to secure the first attempt, the WHO is now manoeuvring and obfuscating the process by introducing the objectional legislation into the current International Health Regulations 2005 (IHR) through wide-ranging and extensive amendments.  They have then rehashed the failed Plandemic Treaty to seemingly address the concerns of the African nations, but the wording alludes to other international agreements, primarily the amended IHR, which would take priority over the consideration for human rights that are seemingly addressed.

As a result of this attempted deception, when assessing the proposed Plandemic Treaty it MUST be looked at in parallel with the IHR currently undergoing the reviews that I detail below. It is clear from this thinly veiled deception that their intentions are nefarious, which should come as no surprise given the background of Tedros prior to his position at the WHO, not to mention the corruption from those such as Bill Gates, who fund the WHO so as to be able to influence global policies in a manner that favours his financial investments in vaccines and the 20:1 ROI he boasts about. Pharma have vested interests too of course.

International Health Regulations

From 20-24th Feb 2023 the WHO hosted and chaired the meeting of the Working Group on Amendments to the International Health Regulations (2005) at their HQ in Geneva.

You will see from the registration page on their website for it that they still refuse to follow the science that has categorically proven that masks don’t protect from a virus such as SARS-CoV2, and they mandate COVID “vaccination” certificates for all attendees and do not recognise PCR test results in lieu. This is indicative of how the WHO would likely choose whatever interpretation of any scientific evidence that suits their agenda and would likely attempt to enforce their consequentially unqualified mandates should THEY choose to declare a pandemic for us and use the Plandemic Treaty to take control of proceedings in whatever country they decide.


The following document is the most recent publication of the intended amendments, showing what wording is being removed, and the intended wording it that would replace it, not to mention the significant number of additional clauses and paragraphs. You need to spend a bit of time looking at this document so that you can see for yourself that what is being passed off as far right wing conspiracy theory is absolutely true. Very quickly you will notice how wording referring to the human rights of the individual are removed and how the WHO itself becomes the body that rules on any dispute and that such rulings would be legally binding under International Law.


Nobody who has actually read this document could possibly interpret it as anything other than planning the loss of our human rights and sovereignty. Any MP or Government official who tries to claim otherwise and who pushes for the UK (or elsewhere) to sign up to these amendments automatically identifies themselves as a traitor and enemy of their country and its citizens IMO.  

Plandemic Treaty

The WHO has a webpage dedicated to misleading the public on their intentions for the proposed “Pandemic Treaty”.


Having read the IHR amendments, the following screenshots that I have put together as a pdf stand out for their total dishonesty, although the top “News” item included on the same page completely undermines the Q & A section with the headline that the INB called for the proposed “instrument” (but we know what you really mean) to be made legally binding! If member States are "legally bound" to abide by what the WHO decrees, then by definition they have handed over sovereignty to the WHO. If member States aren't legally bound to do as they are told what would be the point of a Treaty that individual States could choose to abide by or not, or could participate to whatever degree they decide? To claim that member States would maintain sovereignty is clearly a lie when the IHR amendments make it clear that it would be WHO who get the final ruling in cases of question and/or dispute.

WHO screenshots

The Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB) discussed the CA+ zero draft (CA+) last week in a series of meetings to try to resurrect the original Plandemic Treaty. The next meeting will be April 3-6 at which they are hoping to discuss the first official draft with a view to finalising and signing it in 2024. In line with their complete lack of democracy and accountability to the sovereign people of the world, most of the sessions were held behind closed doors according to their own report.


If you read the first few clauses of the CA+ in isolation it looks like it is protecting the rights and freedoms of the individual, and the sovereignty of nations signed up to it.


However, on closer inspection it’s not that simple. Clause 8 introduces the IHR and sets it out as the agreement by which the WHO would act in its self-appointed controlling and coordinating role. This is confirmed later in the Vision of CA+ (p.8) where it concludes the first extended statement sentence with “recognizing existing relevant international instruments”. In other words, the WHO would choose which legislation it chooses to follow. I don’t consider that the timing and content of the IHR amendments is coincidental, and IMO clearly intended to set out the primary course of action they intend to follow.

The CA+ is all-encompassing in terms of its coverage of veterinary and agricultural matters too under the “One health” banner. Contra to what is states in Clause 23 I would contest that “most emerging infectious diseases originate in animals, including wildlife and domesticated animals, then spill over to people”. It would seem to me that the WHO is preparing to potentially mandate controls on our pets and farmed animals, given that elsewhere they talk about “food insecurity” and antimicrobial resistance. Will there be a future drive to stop pet ownership and/or stop traditional meat production? There is no doubt that this intended Treaty is covering a much wider multitude of bases and scenarios than you might expect.

Note that the definition of pandemic is different in this documentation, compared with the one in the IHR amendments which defines it as “all risks with a potential to impact public health”. I’m sure you’ll agree that the IHR version could include an infectious disease, but equally could be applied to diabetes, pollution or dare I say it “climate change”….

Article 2 Clause 1 of CA+ absolutely nails the IHR to the doorpost as the overriding policy determinant the WHO intends to follow if there was any doubt before. This is why any discussion about the Plandemic Treaty cannot be separated from the IHR amendments currently under negotiation.

CA+ Clauses 1-3 of Chapter II Article 4. Guiding principles and rights would seem to confirm the continuance of our human rights, right to health and sovereignty, but notice that these aren’t defined as our inalienable INDIVIDUAL human rights. An IHR amendment says the following …

… which suggests to me that group-think policy is replacing individual autonomy and rights such that if the WHO considers that the greater good is better serviced by mandating certain measures (eg masks, lockdowns or medications including mRNA gene transfections) then the rights of the individual are not considered overriding.

CA+ Article 14 would seem to confirm my understanding that the human right protections are purely provisional with certain limitations as I have highlighted below.

There are no prizes available for recognising that “aligned with international law” clearly means the IHR post amendments.

Going back to CA+ Chapter II Article 4, Clauses 4-8 would seem to me to confirm the group over individual rights interpretation, but not just limited to within a member State. There are clear indications that group think should be applied across borders given that a pandemic disease doesn’t recognise State borders, and everybody has to be treated equally of course. 

As usual the burden will fall primarily on the “developed” world tax-paying masses to subsidise those nations we are holding back by refusing them the ability to develop on the back of fossil fuel use as we did before. I don’t begrudge helping others, but the burden will fall on the masses who are struggling in our own countries already, whilst the tax-dodging corporations and elite where the wealth has been concentrating over the years carry on relatively unscathed with their wealth hidden in havens or within spreadsheets by accountants who know how to beat the system.

This is no different from other globalist aspects of our future living as set out by the WEF Great Reset, where the masses will "own nothing and be happy" as they are all treated equally but kept poor, whilst the globalist elite will own everything, seize our assets to build their wealth, and will be allowed to pick and choose what they do because they can afford to.

If you think I’m starting to breach the credibility of reality into conspiracy theory and paranoia bear in mind that all these Plandemic Treaty “health” measures are due to be introduced in 2024, ready to be triggered  roughly in parallel with many of the other world changes that the WEF, UN and BIS amongst others have in store for us too – not least Digital Identity, CBDC, 15 minute cities, bans on vehicles using fossil fuels etc.  Put these all together and we’re potentially looking into a fairly stark future on multiple fronts.

Good news?!

By now you’re no doubt thinking that what I’m predicting is all doom and gloom and there is no hope.  That’s what they’d like you to think. I’m only telling you what they’re trying to do so that you're aware and know what it is you need to resist. Without our agreement they cannot succeed.  They want you to think you are powerless, that their globalist Totalitarian Technocracy is inevitable, and that we will have to yield to the legislation they are trying to put in place. NO! "For evil to succeed it requires only that good men do nothing", so we cannot stand idly by and do nothing if we are to defeat this.

The truth is that our inalienable individual rights and freedoms are set out in Constitutional Law by Magna Carta 1215 and upheld through legislature by the Bill of Rights 1688.  As such, any attempt by Government, Parliament, the House of Lords and/or the Monarch, ie King Charles III to enable the WHO or anybody else, including our own Government to remove our Constitutional human rights is treason. As I’ve explained in my Resources section on Constitutional Law, our inalienable rights cannot be rewritten or removed, and Constitution Law sits higher than Legislative Law, so whatever legislative Acts they think they have passed, they are not lawful. The Law is always on our side when it comes to maintaining our inalienable rights, but in order to preserve them we must stand up and be counted.

What can we do? Firstly, whilst the Government of the day are trying to negotiate away our rights and freedoms they are acting unlawfully and should not be supported in any way, shape or form. I would argue that it is our lawful duty to withhold financial and/or any other support for any body trying to remove our freedoms, be they at international, national or local level. If everybody within a District Council where they are trying to introduce 15 minute cities withholds Council Tax and we refuse to pay other taxes to support all traitorous Government bodies we would be fully justified, and indeed honour-bound to do so.

Every single one of us must all make our own individual decision, but be aware that if we all choose the same decision independently they will not have the resources to come after every individual and they will have to back down and do what we want, at which time we will then have to reinstate our support. Remember, the Poll Tax was removed after mass refusal to abide by it. There's no reason we cannot repeat this .... and indeed we must if we want to enjoy our freedom and create a better world.

WE are sovereign! The power is with US, the people. They are NOT in power. Those in office are only there because WE have given permission for them to act in OUR interest, on OUR behalf.  They work for us and we MUST stand up now for the future freedoms of everybody, now and for the generations to come. Remember, WE are the 99%.